weaver lÖffelholz questioning national cultural disciplinary

8/19/2019 WEAVER LÖFFELHOLZ Questioning National Cultural Disciplinary

1/12

Chapter 1

Questioning National, Cultural, andDisciplinary BoundariesA Call for Global Journalism Research

David Weaver and Martin Lõffelholz

In many countries the past few decades have witnessed an upsurge in interest in

studying journalism. Some of the more visible signs of the increasing relevance

of journalism studies include the publication of two new journals in this first

decade of the 21 st century - Journalism Studies in February 200 0 and Journalism:

Theory, Practice and Criticism in April 2000 - as well as the many bo oks and arti-

cles that have focused on journalism in the past decade (e.g. Ettema and Glasser,

1998; Weaver, 1998; Heinonen, 1999; Deuze, 2002; Gans, 2003; Schudson, 2003;Hanitzsch, 2004 ; Lõffelholz, 2004; Zelizer, 200 4; de Burgh, 2005 ; Franklin et al.,

2005; Quandt, 2005; Altmeppen, 2006; Hess, 2006; Weischenberg et al., 2006;

Weaver et al., 2007).

Moreover, the International Communication Association (ICA) as well as the

European Communication Research and Education Association (ECREA) recently

launched specific divisions in order to provide better opportunities for research-

ers to study journalism comparatively and beyond narrow national paradigms.

The ongoing institutionalization of internationalized or even globalized jour

nalism studies is not only indicating a growing importance, but also demonstrating

that journalism research can no longer operate within national or cultural bor-

ders only: Media industries, media corporations, and public institutions in the

field of communication are “going global,” computer-mediated communication

spreads around the world, and cultural borderlines are becoming blurred by the

hybridization of cultures (McPhail, 2006). In this increasingly global media envi-

ronment, advertising, entertainment, public relations, and - last but not least

- journalism are becoming global phenomena affecting media content, the pro-

cess of news production and even the actual working background of journalists inmany countries.

This insight provides a central starting point for our book of global journalism

research. It aims to give a comprehensive overview on journalism research and

its different approaches, methods, and paradigms around the world. Thus, the

book brings together, for the first time, four main aspects in one volume. The

first part introduces major theories of journalism research while the second part

focuses on traditional research methods in the context o f globalization. Aspects of


2/12

4 David Weaver and Martin Lõffelholz

comparative research are especially emphasized. In order to provide a real global

perspective, for the third part we selected six contributions describing paradig-

matically the state of journalism research in Asia, Africa, Europe, and North and

Latin America, while the fourth part discusses important aspects of future jour

nalism research in an era of globalization. In order to acknowledge the current

trends of journalism research, it is, however, useful to briefly look back at the

beginnings of a scholarly understanding o f news production.

Early Steps in Journalism Research

In a sense, we have come full circle from the 193 Os, when the emphasis was onbroadening what was considered narrowly focused journalism research into the

more general study of mass communícation processes and effects. One of the

early influential books of this movemenr, Mass Communications, edited by Wilbur

Schramm and published in 1960 by the University of Illinois Press, includes the

following tribute: “This volume is dedicated to three píoneers in the study of mass

Communications through the social Sciences: Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Harold D. Fass-

well, and Carl I. Hovland” (Schramm, 1960, p. v). These three pioneers of mass

comm unication research were known mainly for their studies o f media effects, of

course, not for studying the producers of media content, although Harold Lass-well (1948) did put more emphasis on analyzing actual content than did the other

two. But none of these early pioneers were much concerned with studying media

organizations or journalists. They tended to accept media messages as given, and

they were not very interested in studying how and why these messages came to

be what they were. In addition, many of the studies of journalists and journalism

before the 1930s were mostly descriptive, often anecdotal and uncritical histories

of printing, newspapers, and periodicals that focused on the lives of major editors

and publishers.From the 1930s to the 1950s, in the United States as well as in other countries,

there were more interpretive histories of journalism that examined the relation-

ships between societal forces and journalistic institutions, and there were also a

few more systematic studies of journalists, including Feo Rosten’s 1937 book on

Washington correspondents (Rosten, 1937). Among those early research projects

were David Manning White’s study of the “ gatekeeper” selecting the news (White,

1950), and Warren Breeds study of social control in the newsroom (Breed, 1955).

Other studies of journalists during this period included one of the editorial staff of

the Milwaukee Journal, of Oregon editorial writers, of Kansas weekly publishers,

of American correspondents abroad, and of foreign correspondents in the United

States (Schramm, 1957). This shows that there were studies of journalists and

journalism before the 1970s, but they were few compared to the dozens of studies

of media uses and effects. It was not until 1971 that, as far as we know, the first

and truly large-scale national survey of journalists working for a variety of media

was carried out by the sociologist John Johnstone and his colleagues at the Univer

sity' of Illinois Chicago Circle campus (Johnstone, Slawski, and Bowman, 1976).


3/12

Questioning National, Cultural, and Disciplinary Boundaries 5

Another important step o f empirical journalism research is connected with the

work of the German scholar Manfred Rühl. Based on a societal approach to jour

nalism, Rühl conducted in the 1960s the first empirical study that focused on an

organized social system instead of journalistic individuais. His case study of a

German newspaper marked a radical change in perspective because he did not

describe journalism by identifying characteristics and attitudes of journalists as

individuais but by analyzing it as a rationalized production process taking place in

an editorial setting that was defined as an organized social system (Rühl, 1969). It

took, however, decades before the relevance of theoretically driven empirical jour

nalism research was adequately recognized.

The Indistinct Relevance of Journalism Researchin the 1970s and the 1980s

Some years after John Johnstone and Manfred Rühl conducted their influential

studies, David Weaver and Richard Gray argued in a paper reviewing trends in

mass communication research presented at the 1979 AEJ convention in Houston

that many mass communication researchers had become more concerned with

media audiences and the effects of media messages upon them than with jour

nalism, journalists, and the actual production of messages (Weaver and Gray,

1979). They also argued that even though the program s o f research on media uses

and effects had some relevance to journalism education and journalism, it was

limited. Weaver and Gray concluded that continued concern over media effects

had resulted in little systematic research on the effects of society on the media,

even though journalists are greatly influenced by societal and organizational con-

straints, and even though their training and values and news organizations are

shaped by political and economic forces.

A dozen years later, in the first edition of their important book, Mediating the message, first published in 1991, Pamela Shoemaker and Stephen Reese made essen-

tially this same point when they wrote that “Most books on mass media research

mainly cover studies dealing with the process through which the audience receives

mass media content or with the effects of content on people and society. We

believe that it is equally important to understand the influences that shape con

tent” (Shoemaker and Reese, 1996, p. 3).

Why was not there more systematic research on journalists and journalism com-

pared to the outpouring of studies of media messages, audiences, uses, and effects?

Shoemaker and Reese (1996) suggest that it was due to several factors, includ-

ing the uncritical nature of mass communication research that rarely questioned

media institutions themselves, dependence on media industry funding for large-

scale surveys and the interest of large media organizations in their audiences (the

so-called “dominant paradigm” exemplified by Paul Lazarsfeld and his Bureau of

Applied Social Research at Columbia University), as well as the interest of gov-

ernments worldwide (quite often significant funders of research) in media effects,

especially the effects of propaganda in wartime and the possible harmful effects


4/12


of films and television. These factors largely correspond with those discussed by

David Weaver and Richard Gray in their 1979 paper on research trends (Weaver

and Gray, 1979).Another reason for fewer studies of journalists and news organizations has to

do with limited access. It is still far easier to study media messages and audiences

than it is to study journalists, media organizations or the entire process of struc-

tured news production, particularly from a comparative perspective. Experiences

with the most recent national survey of US journalists (Weaver et al., 2007) or with

the first comparative survey of German and American online journalists (Quandt

et al., 2006), for instance, showed that getting access to journalists is still not an

easy task. A comparison of the various national surveys of US journalists sug-

gests that the responses of journalists to surveys are on the decline (Weaver etal., 2007). Getting access is even more difficult in newsroom observation stud

ies because they require not only willingness of journalistic individuais but also

acceptance within the entire news organization (Quandt, 2005). Hence, news

room observation studies are perhaps the most difficult of any journalism studies,

without personal connections that provide the needed access to the newsroom.

Linking the Diverse Leveis of Journalism Research:The 1990s until Today

Although the relevance of journalism research is still being disputed in some coun

tries and although empirical studies more than ever have to take into account

the limited access to journalists and newsrooms, the overall number of studies

on journalism and journalists is increasing steadily on a global scale. Above and

beyond surveys, interviews with journalists or newsroom observations there are

some very insightful and useful journalism studies that rely entirely on analysis of

journalistic messages or that study the economics, culture, policies, and practicesof media organizations from a more macro levei (Schudson, 2003; Zelizer, 2004).

But there are relatively few studies until today that try to link the characteristics

and attitudes of journalists, the attributes of their news organizations, and societal

influences with the kinds of messages journalists produce.

Certainly the surveys of journalists that the editors of this book on global jour

nalism research have been involved with (Weaver and Wilhoit, 1986,1991,1996;

Weischenberg, Lõffelholz, and Scholl 1998; Quandt et al., 2006; Weaver et al.,

2007) have done little in this regard, and the same is true for most other surveys of journalists that we know about. In the 1982 and 1992 surveys of American journal

ists and in the 1993 survey of German journalists, it was attempted to correlate the

demographics and attitudes o f journalists with samples o f their best work (Weaver

and Wilhoit, 1991, 1996; Weischenberg, Lõffelholz, and Scholl, 1998), but in the

most recent 2002 national study of US journalists (Weaver et al., 2007) and in the

2005 national study of German journalists (Weischenberg et al., 2006), there was

no way of matching individual journalists in the survey with their samples o f work,

particularly due to increased privacy protections for survey respondents.


5/12

Questioning National, Cultural, and D isciplinary Boundaries 7

There is value in systematically studying representative samples of journalists

to document their characteristics, backgrounds, attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions,

but much of that information will always be descriptive rather than explanatory or

predictive. Although this kind of descriptive baseline information is useful for doc-

umenting who journalists are and what they believe about their work and their

organizations, especially over time and across national and cultural boundaries,

it does not by itself contribute very much to explaining why news coverage is the

way it is or why journalists do their work as they do.

There are some fairly recent exceptions, however, that hold out more promise

for advances in theory than many of the more descriptive surveys of journalists.

These include a growing number of integrative journalism theories searching for

the micro-macro link in journalism research (see the chapter of Martin Lõffel-holz in this book) as well as empirical studies such as that by Stephanie Craft and

Wayne Wanta (2004), which examines the iníluences of female editors and report-

ers on the news agenda, an article by Shelly Rodgers and Esther Thorson (2003)

that examines the news coverage of male and female reporters at three US dailies,

and a paper by Tim Vos (2002) that examined the correlation between journal

ists’ perceived roles and the roles manifested in their news stories, building on the

work that Lori Bergen (Weaver and Wilhoit, 1991) and Divya M cMillin (Weaver

and Wilhoit, 1996) did with the 1982 and 1992 surveys of American journalists

and the samples o f best work sent to the authors by these journalists. These stud

ies that attempt to correlate the characteristics and beliefs of individual journalists

with their news coverage often find rather weak relationships, especially between

role perceptions and the roles evident in news coverage, but they are at least start-

ing to examine relationships that could lead to more explanation and prediction.

We suspect that the attitudes of journalists do matter to the kind of reporting

they do, but more so at the organizational levei than the individual. For exam-

ple, if most journalists in a particular news organization rate the adversarial role

highly, it seems likely that more of the news articles produced by that organization will be adversarial in nature, and we think that the same is true for other roles

such as neutral disseminator and interpreter. Because news media reporting is usu-

ally not the product of isolated individuais, we think that it is likely to be more

fruitful to study the links between journalists’ attitudes and news content at the

organizational rather than the individual levei.

This is true, we think, even for those studies that suggest that gender of journal

ists is correlated with reporting. As Kay Mills points out in her chapter on what

difference women journalists make in Pippa Norris’ book, Women, media, and

politics (Mills, 1997, p. 45 ), women at some newspapers and broadcast media lack

the “ criticai mass” to alter definitions of news and to change the agendas of news

coverage. Katherine Graham of The Washington Post is quoted in another chap

ter in this book by Maurine Beasley as saying that there is “a difference between

having the authority to make decisions and the power to make policy” (Beasley,

1997, p. 240). Thus it seems likely that this important individual characteristic

may exert its influence indirectly through first influencing the priorities of a news

organization, which then in turn influences the kind of news reporting produced


6/12


by that organization, as Siegfried Weischenberg and Maja Malik argue in their

chapter on journalism research in Germany.

It is possible to view these influences in the opposite order, of course, so thatthe organizational characteristics have their influence indirectly through individ

ual journalists’ characteristics and beliefs, as Wolfgang Donsbach is suggesting in

his chapter of this book, but in the longer run the characteristics of news organ-

izations are probably influenced by individuais, especially those who achieve

positions of influence and power such as prominent editors, publishers, news

directors, producers, and owners.

This example points out the importance of studying influences on news con

tent not only at the individual levei, but also at the organizational and even more

abstract leveis such as extramedia and societal, as Pamela Shoemaker and StephenReese (1996) have advocated. It is possible to aggregate individual levei data from

surveys of journalists into the organizational levei, if one has enough cases from

each organization, but studying extramedia factors such as the economic and

political environments and societal ideologies cannot be done by surveying indi

vidual journalists in one country or culture. Comparative studies across national

and cultural boundaries are necessary to assess these influences, as in the analysis

of journalists from mainland China, Hong Kong, and the United States (Zhu et

al., 1997).

Journalism Research in an Era of Globalization

The growing number of comparative studies indicates that journalism and jour

nalism research no longer operate within national or cultural boundaries. As inter-

national events such as war, terrorism, international conferences etc. gain more

attention in the media around the globe, research has to examine the new com-

plex networks and institutions that produce news. This implies many challengesfor practícing journalists as well as journalism researchers who will have to set

up international cooperation if they do not want to lose a grip on the phenomena

they try to explain. Comparative research and theories of wide scope are needed

that take into account these developments. Therefore this book includes sections

on journalism theories, methods, selected paradigms and findings from various

regions of the world, a s well as on the future of a globalized journalism research.

The theories that are needed to better understand journalism cultures, systems,

structures, functions, and practices include those at different leveis of analysis(psychological, organizational, societal, and cultural) and also those that focus

on different dimensions o f journalists, such as gender. The second section o f this

book is a comprehensive review including the most important theories of jour

nalism research. While Martin Lõffelholz gives an introductory overview of the

approaches, the following contributors offer insights into various theories and

approaches in the field. Manfred Rühl introduces the societal approach, followed

by John Hartley, who draws on the cultural studies approach when he claims

“everybody is a journalist.” Klaus-Dieter Altmeppen points out the organiza-


7/12

Questioning National, Cultural, and Disciplinary Boundaries 9

tional aspects of journalistic institutions, their structures and processes. Besides

structural factors, journalists as individuais and their decisions of what becomes

news depend on psychological variables. Therefore, Wolfgang Donsbach presents

a model that tries to integrate various theories about news decisions. Another

central variable, of course, is gender, which Gertrude J. Robinson considers to

be a constituting element of human society. As ali interaction is influenced by it,

journalism research has to analyze systemic gender biases within the journalistic

profession as well.

Of course journalism research cannot be done without its tools. The classics

among them are survey, content analysis and observation, so this book includes

chapters on each of these by scholars who have done recent studies using them.

But first, in an era of globalization, the methodology of comparative journalismresearch is one of the central issues. The difficulties and models of cross-national

or cross-cultural research are the starting point of the first chapter in this section

by Thomas Hanitzsch. The first method described in detail, survey research, is dis-

cussed by David Weaver and is based on the American Journalist surveys (Weaver

and Wilhoit, 1986, 1991, 1996; Weaver et al., 2007) and his edited book, The

globa l journalist, which brought together surveys of journalists from ali o ver the

world (Weaver, 1998). Christian Kolmer, of the Media Tenor organization, has

specialized in news media and its contents. He presents insights into the analysis

of the world in the media. The professional routines and working patterns as con-

ditions of news production can also be observed directly, so Thorsten Quandt,

who recently conducted a detailed study o f online journalism, introduces a rarely

applied, but very promising, method o f journalism research: the systematic news

room observation.

After discussing major theories and methods in journalism research, the book

turns to selected paradigms and findings from studies of journalism and journal

ists in several different countries and regions, including China, Taiwan, and Hong

Kong (by Zhongdang Pan, Joseph Man Chan, and Ven-hwei Lo), Germany (bySiegfried Weischenberg and M aja Malik), Great Britain (by Karin Wahl-Jorgensen

and Bob Franklin), Mexico (by Maria Elena Hernández Ramírez and Andreas

Schwarz), South Africa (by Arnold de Beer), and the United States of America (by

Jane Singer). The central aim of this section is to bring together researchers who

discuss approaches and main findings of journalism research in their countries in

the context of globalization and its challenges.

Finally, the last section raises questions and challenges traditional paradigms

based on the concept of the nation-state and its boundaries. The contributors dis

cuss how globalization affects journalism itself as well as journalism research as a

discipline and thus suggest new ways that scholars should go. Barbie Zelizer, for

instance, argues that despite wide-ranging scholarship, few attempts are being made

to share knowledge beyond disciplinary boundaries. She analyzes five main types of

inquiry concerning journalism research - sociology, history, language studies, polit-

ical Science and cultural studies - and points out their limitations. However, Ari

Heinonen and Heikki Luostarinen from Finland focus on the object of scholarly

research, journalism, which is characterized by its changing nature. They outline the


8/12


dual nature of journalism consisting of media-centric and society-centric dimensions

and analyze the “signs of change” that can be observed in times of globalization.

These changes, they argue, will affect journalism both internally and externally.Stephen Reese considers globalization as a process that extends beyond economic

changes into political and cultural spheres. He describes the role of journalism in

that process as crucial and raises the question of how it supports democratic life in a

globalized society. Mark Deuze points out the lack of coherence in the field of jour

nalism research as well as education and, as a consequence, suggests considering

journalism as an occupational ideology.

The objective of this final section is to suggest a new orientation for journalism

research, which needs to take into account the processes of globalization and how

they affect ali parts o f society. Both national and disciplinary boundaries have tobe overcome in this new approach, which is no easy task, a s this book makes clear.

Journalism is, of course, only one form of public communication, but it is one of

the most important, if not the most important, for any democratic system of gov-

ernment. Advertising, public relations, and entertainment are ali important and

influential genres of public communication, but often their importance is meas-

ured more in economic terms than political terms. Therefore, some of the theories

that are successful in describing and explaining these other forms of public com

munication are not likely to fully apply to the study of journalism. However, journalism is not so different from other forms of public communication that it

needs completely different theories, as the agenda-setting theory is illustrating.

We hope that this book on global journalism research will stimulate and refine

our thinking about the approaches and methods that will be most fruitful in stud

ying journalists and journalism in this decade and beyond. And we hope that in

our forthcoming discussions of old and new paradigms, theories, and methods

for studying journalism we will keep in mind opportunities to link our studies

with those about media uses and effects to produce a more unified, theoretical,

and useful body of knowledge about the complex processes o f this form of publiccommunication known as journalism.

References

Altmeppen, K. D. (2006). Journalismus und Medien ais Organisationssysteme. Leistungen,

Strukturen und Management [journalism and media as organizational systems. Func-

tions, structures and management], Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Beasley, M. H. (1997). How can media coverage of women be improved? In P. Norris (ed.),

Women, media, and politics (pp. 235-44). New York and Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Breed, W. (1955). Social control in the newsroom. Social Forces, 33, 326-35.

de Burgh, H. (2005). Making journalists. London and New York: Routledge.

Craft, S., and Wanta, W. (2004). Women in the newsroom: Influences of female editors

and reporters on the news agenda, journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81,

124-38.

Deuze, M. (2002). Journalists in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Aksant Academic Publishers.


9/12

Q uestioning N ationa l , Cultural, an d Discipl inary B oun daries 11

Ettema, J. S., and Glasser, T. L. (1998). Custodians o f conscience: Investigative journalism

and public virtue. New York: Columbia University Press.

Franklin, B., Hamer, M., Hanna, M ., Kinsey, M., and Richardson, J. E. (2005). Key con-

cepts in journalism studies. London, Thousand Oaks, CA, and New Delhi: Sage.Gans, H. J. (2003). Democracy and the news. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hanitzsch, T. (2004). Journalismus in lndonesien. Akteure, Strukturen, Orientierungshor-

izonte, Journalismuskulturen [journalism in Indonésia. Actors, structures, orientation

horizons, journalism cultures). Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitàts-Verlag.

Heinonen, A. (1999). Journalism in the age of the net: Changing society, changing jour

nalism. Tampere, Finland: Acta Universitatis Tamperensis.

Hess, S. (2006). Through their eyes: Foreign correspondents in the United States. Washing

ton, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Johnstone, J. W. C., Slawski, E. J., and Bowman, W. W. (1976). The news people: A socio- logical portrait o f American journalists and their work. Urbana, IL: University of Illi

nois Press.

Lasswell, H. D. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In

L. Bryson (ed.), The communication ofid ea s (pp. 37-51 ). New York: Institute for Reli-

gious and Social Studies. Also reprinted in W. Schramm (ed.), Mass Communications.

2nd edition (pp. 117-30). U rbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1960.

Lõffelholz, M. (ed.) (2004). Theorien des Journalismus [Theories o f journalism}. 2nd edi

tion. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

McPhail, T. L. (2006). Global communication. Theories, stakeholders, and trends. 2nd edition. Malden, Oxford, and Carlton: Blackwell Publishing.

Mills, K. (1997). What difference do women journalists make? In P. Norris (ed.), Women,

media, and politics (pp. 41-55). New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Quandt, T. (2005). Journalisten im Netz. Eine Untersuchung journalistischen Handelns

in Online-Redaktionen [Journalists in the net. A study o f journalistic action in online

newsrooms]. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Quandt, T., Lõffelholz, M., Weaver, D. H., Hanitzsch, T., and Altmeppen, K.-D. (2006).

American and German online journalists at the beginning of the 21st century: A bi-

national survey. Journalism Studies, 7(2), 171-86.

Rodgers, S., and Thorson, E. (2003). A socialization perspective on male and female report

ing. Journ al o f Communication, 53, 658-75.

Rosten, Leo. (1974 [1937]). The Washington correspondents. New York: Harcourt, Brace.

Reprint of 1937 edition published by Arno Press.

Rühl, M. (1969). Die Zeitungsredaktion ais orgamsiertes soziales System [The newspaper’s

editorial department as an organized social system}. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann Universitàts-

verlag.

Schramm, W. (1957). Twenty years of journalism research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 21,

91-107.

Schramm, W. (1960). Mass Communications. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Schudson, M. (2003). The sociology o f news. New York: Norton.

Shoemaker, P. J., and Reese, S. D. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influences on

mass media content. 2nd edition. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Vos, Tim P. (August 9, 2002). Role enactment: The influence of jou rnalis ts’ role concep-

tions on news content. Paper presented to the Association for Education in Journalism

and Mass Communication. Miami, FL.

Weaver, D. H. (1998). The glob al journalist: News people aroun d the world. Cresskill, NJ:

Hampton Press.


10/12

12 D avid Weaver and M artin Lõ ffelholz

Weaver, D. H., Beam, R. A., Brownlee, B. J., Voakes, R S., and Wilhoit, G. C. (2007). The

American journalist in the 21 st century: US news people at the dawn o f a new millen-

nium. M ahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Weaver, D. H., and Gray, R. G. (1979). journ alism and mass communication research in the United States: Past, present and future. Paper presented to the Association for Edu-

cation in Journalism. Houston, Texas. Also published in G. C. Wilhoit and H. de Bock

(eds.) (1980) Mass communication review yearbook, 1 (pp. 124-51). Beverly Hills, CA:

Sage.

Weaver, D. H., and Wilhoit, G. C. (1986). The American journalist: A portrait of US news

people and their work. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Weaver, D. H., and Wilhoit, G. C. (1991). The American journalist: A portrait o f US news

people and their work. 2nd edition. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Weaver, D. H., and Wilhoit, G. C. (1996). The American journalist in the 1990s: US news people at the end o f an era. Mahwah, N J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Weischenberg, S., Lõffelholz, M., and Scholl, A. (1998). Journalism in Germany. In

D. H. Weaver (ed.), The global journalist: Studies of news people around the world

(pp. 229-56 ). Cresskill, N J: Hampton Press.

Weischenberg, S., Malik, M., and Scholl, A. (2006). Souffleure der Mediengesellschaft.

Report über die Journalisten in Deutschland [Prompters o f the media society. Report

about journalists in Germany]. Konstanz: UVK.

White, D. M. (1950). The “gatekeeper” : A case study in the selection of news. Journalism

Quarterly, 27, 383-90.Zelizer, B. (2004). Taking journalism seriously: News and the academy. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Zhu, J., Weaver, D. H., Lo, V., Chen, C., and Wu, W. (1997). Individual, organizational,

and societal influences on media role perceptions: A comparative study o f journalists in

China, Taiwan, and the United States. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,

74, 84-96. Reprinted in M. Prosser and K. Sitaram (eds.) (1999), Civic discourse: Inter-

cultural, international, and global media. Vol. 2 (pp. 361-74). Stamford, CT: Ablex.


11/12

Global Journalism ResearchTheories, Methods, Findings, Future

Edited by Martin Lóffelholz and David Weaver

with the assistance o f Andreas Schwarz

Éj k BlackwellPublishing


12/12

© 20 08 by Blackwell Publishing Ltdexcept for editorial material and organization © 2008 by Martin Lõffelholz and David Weaver

B L A C K W E L L P U B L I S H I N G

350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02 148-5020 , USA

9600 Garsington Road, O xford OX4 2DQ , UK

550 Swanston Street, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia

The right of M artin Lõffelholz and David Weaver to be identified as the Authors o f the EditorialMaterial in this Work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs, and

Patents Act 1988.

Ali rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,

or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or

otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988, without the

prior permission of the publisher.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. Ali

brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks, or

registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product

or vendor mentioned in this book.

This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard tothe subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in

rendering professional Services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the

Services of a competent professional should be sought.

First published 2008 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd

1 2008

Library o f Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Da ta

Global journalism research: theories, methods, findings, future / edited by Martin Lõffelholz &c

David Weaver; with the assistance of Andreas Schwarz.p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 978-1-4051-5331-7 (hardcover: alk. paper) — ISBN 978-1-4051-5332-4 (pbk.: alk.

paper)1. Journalism— Research. I. Lõffelholz, Martin, 19 59 - II. Weaver, David H. (David Hugh), 1946 -

PN4784.R38G 56 2008070.4'3—dc22

2007028075

A catalogue record for this title is available from the British Library.

Set in 10/12.5 pt Sabon

by The Running Head Limited, Cambridge, www.therunninghead.com

Printed and bound in Singapore

by C. O. S. Printers Pte Ltd

The publisher’s policy is to use permanent paper from mills that operate a sustainable forestry

policy, and which has been manufactured from pulp processed using acid-free and elementarychlorine-free practices. Furthermore, the publisher ensures that the text paper and cover board

used have met acceptable environmental accreditation standards.

For íurther information on

Blackwell Publishing, visit our web site:

www.blackwellpublishing.com
http://www.therunninghead.com/http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/http://www.therunninghead.com/

weaver lÖffelholz questioning national cultural disciplinary

Documents